Reflecting on the Supreme Court’s ruling, the Karnataka High Court observed that it has been explicitly established that Special Public Prosecutors (SPPs) under the POCSO Act are restricted to handling only the cases assigned to them in the special courts, without engaging in any other work.
Karnataka High Court has overturned the Karnataka state government’s decision to assign regular Public Prosecutors to Special Courts under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. This ruling was in response to a series of petitions by advocates who were appointed as Special Public Prosecutors (SPPs) on a contractual basis to handle cases in POCSO courts.
The Advocates had challenged the state’s November 2022 notification, which reassigned the roles of regular Public Prosecutors to these Special Courts. They argued that the state lacked the legal authority to make such changes, especially since some of the petitioners were still serving their tenure as SPPs. In defense, the State government claimed it had the necessary powers under the POCSO Act to make these appointments and noted that the contract-based lawyers had agreed not to seek regularization.
The Court, in its deliberation, noted a significant discrepancy between the procedures for appointing an SPP under the POCSO Act and a Public Prosecutor under the Code of Criminal Procedure. Consequently, it concluded that regular cadre employees of prosecuting officers could not be appointed as SPPs under the POCSO Act, leading to the quashing of the government’s decision.
Also read- Man Acquitted In Rape Case By Madhya Pradesh High Court. (lawchakra.in)
However, the Court also identified procedural issues with the State government’s method of appointing the petitioners as SPPs. The Court clarified,
“The Notification under which the present petitioners were appointed does not create a bar as envisaged by the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, inasmuch as there is no restriction for the Special Public Prosecutors to be appointed under the POCSO Act to deal with other cases.”
In its order, the Court mandated,
“The exercise of appointing such Special Public Prosecutors shall be undertaken and completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.”
This directive underscores the urgency and importance of appointing qualified legal professionals to these sensitive positions in accordance with the law.
This judgment highlights the judiciary’s role in ensuring that appointments to crucial legal positions, especially in sensitive areas like POCSO courts, are made in strict adherence to legal procedures and protocols. It underscores the importance of the legal system’s integrity in handling sensitive cases and the need for specialized legal expertise in such matters.
Also read- Delhi High Court Rules In Favor Of Deepika’s Brand Case (lawchakra.in)
